Shanghai GP3 100 3.25x4.25 film size problem

[BAC1967]

I recently purchased a box of Shanghai GP3 3.25x4.25 (3x4) film from a seller on eBay. Today I was trying to load it into some Graflex film holders and was having trouble getting it to slide into the proper grooves. One side kept going into the dark slide groove. Finally I gave up and pulled a sheet out to check it. This film measures exactly 3.25x4.25 inches. The problem with that, it should be 1/16 inch shorter in both directions to fit into the holder properly. I measured some other 3x4 film to confirm this. Has anyone else had this problem with Shanghai film? I sent a message to the seller but its been more than a month since I bought it so I don’t have much recourse to get a refund.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Invest in a high quality roller paper cutter to trim the film down in the darkroom. There is nothing quite like having something trimmed to the specified size and finding that the specification was merely an approximation.

 

[BAC1967]

I think this was a bit more than an approximation error.

 

[Don_ih]

from a seller on eBay

File a return. If you need to cut film, anyway, you'd be better off buying 5x7 and getting 2 sheets out of one.

It's also very difficult to cut anything less than 3/16" off a sheet of film.

 

[BAC1967]

I’ve been going back and forth with the seller about this, they seem convinced that it’s the correct size. This was the response.

I just asked the agency, the size of the films is 3.25x4.25 inches, it's not wrong,It's the true 3.25x4.25 inches.

You need to insert the film through the gaps on both sides, please try again.

I also pointed out that 4x5 film is actually 3-15/16”x4-15/16”.

The photo below shows GAF Versapan 3.25x4.25 film on top of Shanghai GP3 film to illustrate the size difference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I’ve been going back and forth with the seller about this, they seem convinced that it’s the correct size. This was the response.





I also pointed out that 4x5 film is actually 3-15/16”x4-15/16”.

The photo below shows GAF Versapan 3.25x4.25 film on top of Shanghai GP3 film to illustrate the size difference.

You meant: "I also pointed out that 4x5 film is actually 3-15/16”x4-15/16”." should be

I also pointed out that 3.25"4.25" film is actually 3-15/16”x4-15/16”.​

Remember the rest of the world uses metric measurement and they are not usually familiar with US Standard Measures and the common usage, which often is illogical.

 

[Don_ih]

You meant: "I also pointed out that 4x5 film is actually 3-15/16”x4-15/16”." should be
I also pointed out that 3.25"4.25" film is actually 3-15/16”x4-15/16”.

No. He meant 4x5 is 1/16" shorter each dimension than the nominal size. All such film sizes are that way, since they were made to fit into sheaths that fit into where a glass plate would sit in an older holder. Glass plates were actually 4x5, 3.24x4.25, etc.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No. He meant 4x5 is 1/16" shorter each dimension than the nominal size. All such film sizes are that way, since they were made to fit into sheaths that fit into where a glass plate would sit in an older holder. Glass plates were actually 4x5, 3.24x4.25, etc.

My point was that the nominal sheet film sizes and the standard sheet film sizes are not the same and that one should not assume that someone outside the US would know the differences and distinctions.

 

[Don_ih]

My point was that the nominal sheet film sizes and the standard sheet film sizes are not the same and that one should not assume that someone outside the US would know the differences and distinctions.

And why would someone not in the US not know that, if they're manufacturing, labelling, and selling film? And what's different about what you said and what the OP said, anyway?

 

[BAC1967]

No. He meant 4x5 is 1/16" shorter each dimension than the nominal size. All such film sizes are that way, since they were made to fit into sheaths that fit into where a glass plate would sit in an older holder. Glass plates were actually 4x5, 3.24x4.25, etc.

You are correct, sorry if I wasn’t totally clear on that. I didn’t know that about glass plates, makes sense now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And why would someone not in the US not know that, if they're manufacturing, labelling, and selling film? And what's different about what you said and what the OP said, anyway?

Because he or she is not dealing with the manufacturer but someone on the internet. It is best to be specific as possible to avoid as many problems as possible and assume nothing.

 

[Mike Lopez]

No. He meant 4x5 is 1/16" shorter each dimension than the nominal size. All such film sizes are that way, since they were made to fit into sheaths that fit into where a glass plate would sit in an older holder. Glass plates were actually 4x5, 3.24x4.25, etc.

Also, “3.25”4.25” film” (which is what was written in post #6) is simply not going to be 3-15/16” x 4-15/16”. That’s just plain wrong.

 

[monst]

I have 9 holders for my 3x4 and the shanghai fits fine in 8, the last one is the same as your picture. It seems there are some smaller septums around.

 

[BAC1967]

I have 9 holders for my 3x4 and the shanghai fits fine in 8, the last one is the same as your picture. It seems there are some smaller septums around.

I have 12 Graflex holders, I just checked it with 10 of them, both sides (2 have film loaded), the Shanghai film didn’t fit in any. Can you measure the width of your Shanghai film?

 

[chuckroast]

I recently purchased a box of Shanghai GP3 3.25x4.25 (3x4) film from a seller on eBay. Today I was trying to load it into some Graflex film holders and was having trouble getting it to slide into the proper grooves. One side kept going into the dark slide groove. Finally I gave up and pulled a sheet out to check it. This film measures exactly 3.25x4.25 inches. The problem with that, it should be 1/16 inch shorter in both directions to fit into the holder properly. I measured some other 3x4 film to confirm this. Has anyone else had this problem with Shanghai film? I sent a message to the seller but its been more than a month since I bought it so I don’t have much recourse to get a refund.

I just measured some Fomapan 9x12 nominal and it actually measured 8.9 x 11.9 cm, thereby providing 1mm of relief in each dimension. These have no trouble going into film holders. That's a bit less than your claim of 1/16" but the film should certainly not be exactly its nominal size.

 

[monst]

mine is 84mm x 109mm for the 3.25 4.25 from Shanghai

 

[MCB18]

I recently purchased a box of Shanghai GP3 3.25x4.25 (3x4) film from a seller on eBay. Today I was trying to load it into some Graflex film holders and was having trouble getting it to slide into the proper grooves. One side kept going into the dark slide groove. Finally I gave up and pulled a sheet out to check it. This film measures exactly 3.25x4.25 inches. The problem with that, it should be 1/16 inch shorter in both directions to fit into the holder properly. I measured some other 3x4 film to confirm this. Has anyone else had this problem with Shanghai film? I sent a message to the seller but its been more than a month since I bought it so I don’t have much recourse to get a refund.

Boy, was thinking about buying 3x4 from these guys, but seems like I dodged a bullet.

If you really are looking to get into 3x4, I would suggest Astrum. I got about 100 sheets of 3x4 film from them, and although I have yet to use it, other folks who bought film in the same order as me have said that their films fit well into the holders.

Ordering isn’t as simple as clicking “buy” on an online store, which scares folks off. But, it’s not particularly difficult, just email them and they’ll help you, and are very good at responding in a timely manner. I was quoted $36.00 for 100 sheets (no, that isn’t a typo) for 81 x 106mm (3x4) film. Shipping is a bit extra, but I bet you could get it for less than $60 in total.

Also, no (or very low) minimum order. If you really wanted 10 sheets just to try it, I’m fairly confident they would fulfill it.

Hope that helps!

 

[Craig]

3.25X 4.25" converts to 82.55 X 107.95mm.

I found an old copy of the ISO spec for sheet film sizes (ISO 1012), and it says that for sheets up to 12cm (120mm) the nominal aim is -1.5mm on each side. For example for a nominal 9x12cm sheet, the aim for cutting should be 88.5 X 118.5mm. For sheets over 12cm the aim is to subtract 2mm for clearance. Tolerances are +/- 0.5mm under 12cm dimension, +/- 1 mm over 12cm.

Therefore the aim size for the 3x4" should be 81 x 106.45mm.

In inches a 4x5" sheet should actually be 3.92 x 4.92", with a tolerance of +/- 0.020"

 

[markjwyatt]

Actual sheet film sizes

I saw a posting that was asking for the sizes of film. I offer the actual sizes of sheet film that Kodak manufactured in 2004. Aim is the goal. Min/Max are the tolerances accepted. In practice there are action limits that are closer to the aim than the minimum and maximum limits. So...

www.photrio.com

"...I offer the actual sizes of sheet film that Kodak manufactured in 2004. Aim is the goal. Min/Max are the tolerances accepted. In practice there are action limits that are closer to the aim than the minimum and maximum limits. So that actual production will not approach the min/max measurements. This is tighter than ISO standards specifications ."

3.25 x 4.25 (size) 3.172 x 4.172 (minimum) 3.188 x 4.188 (aim) 3.203 x 4.203 (max)

Kodak tolerances (tighter than ISO 1012 : 1998)

 

[pentaxuser]

Just out of curiosity but given the film was made by Shanghai to the exact measurements as advertised but is too big for film holders, then what does Shanghai intend this film for?

I am assuming that Shanghai, as it is in the business of film, knows that actual size has to be smaller than nominal size or does it? Is there any chance that it has been completely unaware of the need for a difference between actual size and nominal size? If so then it must be making a lot of film that will not fit

pentaxuser

 

[AnselMortensen]

Maybe that batch was cut on a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon.
I once had a box of Rollei Infrared in 4x5 that had 3-4 sheets that were undersized & fell out of the holders during loading.

 

[Nokton48]

Better oversized than undersized. Either cut it yourself or sell it to someone who can cut it down? I like Shanghai sheet film generally

 

[BAC1967]

Actual sheet film sizes

I saw a posting that was asking for the sizes of film. I offer the actual sizes of sheet film that Kodak manufactured in 2004. Aim is the goal. Min/Max are the tolerances accepted. In practice there are action limits that are closer to the aim than the minimum and maximum limits. So...

www.photrio.com

"...I offer the actual sizes of sheet film that Kodak manufactured in 2004. Aim is the goal. Min/Max are the tolerances accepted. In practice there are action limits that are closer to the aim than the minimum and maximum limits. So that actual production will not approach the min/max measurements. This is tighter than ISO standards specifications ."

3.25 x 4.25 (size) 3.172 x 4.172 (minimum) 3.188 x 4.188 (aim) 3.203 x 4.203 (max)

Kodak tolerances (tighter than ISO 1012 : 1998)

They misquoted that thread in their latest response.

Dear customer,

Our film sizes are correct, 3.25x4.25 film is actually 3.25x4.25 inches, Kodak's 3.25x4.25 film is also 3.25x4.25, our films conform to Kodak standard and industry standard, please see the link:

Actual sheet film sizes

I saw a posting that was asking for the sizes of film. I offer the actual sizes of sheet film that Kodak manufactured in 2004. Aim is the goal. Min/Max are the tolerances accepted. In practice there are action limits that are closer to the aim than the minimum and maximum limits. So...

www.photrio.com

You can see your photo, width is 3.24-3.25inch, about 3.24inch, a little smaller,

Shanghai boss said they've sold so many, and no one has ever commented that they don't fit, and we have sold a lot of this item on the platform, but no buyer has reported a problem like yours. Hope you can understanding.

If this is too big for your film holder, you can cut the excess inside the darkroom. Hope can you help you.

Best regards,​

 

[markjwyatt]

They misquoted that thread in their latest response.

It is a little scary that someone is producing film without really understanding how it is used! I am glad for Shanghai given the dearth of film choices, and clearly they know how to coat the film (the hardest part), but in the end the film has to work in cameras.

 

[ic-racer]

having trouble getting it to slide into the proper grooves.

That is too bad. I’m not surprised, I once had a box of Shanghai 8x10 with notches at both corners.